I read 2 articles that stated on very reputable sites that this is a great first step, but just a first step, and let's see how it all come together. This is very complicated, it's going to take time, seems like a reasonable thought to me to allow it to play out.

Had Obama or either Clinton done this, all the poo pooers would be peaing themselves in glee about the Nobel Peace Prize heading in their person's way. The reality is Trump could end up signing a document that would end the Korean War, certifiably de-nuclearize NK, get all the US troops out of there, ship a billion pounds of humanitarian supplies to the NK to help the starving population, get all the remains of missing servicemen back from Korea (a point no one is talking about that they agreed to do) and he'd still be lynched. Objectivity is dead.

What are these "very reputable sites"?

And there is zero complicated about this...nothing happened. If Obama had done this nothing would have happened. Just because you skew the truth doesnt mean the rest of us do. Trump did nothing, he changed nothing, and no one is better off in NK over any of this. People in SK may be worse off over this though but who cares about them right?

Last edited by Handyman; 06-13-2018 at 09:08 AM.

"It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
-aparch

"Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
-INCH

Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
-ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

Hardly the point. It's simply that rufus admonishes Timothy to "learn your history" which isn't really fair. It's not Tim's fault that rufus' version isn't available in any history books.

Nothing we do with NK is going to work. The Kim's arent going to stand by any agreement we make because if they are seen as bowing to America they lose power and seem weak. They are a dictatorship afterall.

That is why everything Timothy has said is ridiculous. I get why he is saying it, I even understand why he hopes for it, but in the end it is still ridiculous. Trump did nothing except get Kim to allow him to build some hotels...most likely with slave labor. Once again the US gets nothing but Trump gets to build his brand more. This time though it is on the backs of the very people Timothy thinks Trumpy is saving.

"It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
-aparch

"Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
-INCH

Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
-ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

I read 2 articles that stated on very reputable sites that this is a great first step, but just a first step, and let's see how it all come together. This is very complicated, it's going to take time, seems like a reasonable thought to me to allow it to play out.

Had Obama or either Clinton done this, all the poo pooers would be peaing themselves in glee about the Nobel Peace Prize heading in their person's way. The reality is Trump could end up signing a document that would end the Korean War, certifiably de-nuclearize NK, get all the US troops out of there, ship a billion pounds of humanitarian supplies to the NK to help the starving population, get all the remains of missing servicemen back from Korea (a point no one is talking about that they agreed to do) and he'd still be lynched. Objectivity is dead.

In theory, it could. But based on historical evidence, it won't.

Clinton DID do this, even had a signed agreement and everything was going well, until it didn't and Bush put KN into the corner. And Bill didn't get a Nobel, nor was he even nominated- so I'm not sure why you have the outcry about President Clinton. It actually happened, and it actually didn't lead to a Nobel, nor did it actually lead to depolarization with NK- because NK didn't meet the rules.

What was done was less than any other previous signed agreement, so there's no real reason that anything significant will change.

Yes, there *could* be an agreement to end the Korean War. Could have had that for most presidents. We will see, for sure. But there's zero historical evidence that NK will do what they say they will. The one thing they got out of this was that he got a photo opp with the sitting US President. Which would have spelled an end to the presidency for any previous one, directly meeting with a dictator that sponsors terrorism and all.

And it's pretty darned funny that Obama got slammed for "Hope" and we are now "Hoping" that dump will have an agreement.

former Clinton administration officials have said they knew North Korea was cheating on the uranium enrichment front dating back to 1998 and planned to use that intelligence as leverage to keep the Agreed Framework in place and the plutonium under lock and key. Other Clinton administration officials will also concede that they never thought they would have to build the light-water reactors because they assumed, wrongly, that the regime would collapse before the reactors would be built.

Originally Posted by WiscTJK

I'm with Wisko and Tim.

Originally Posted by Timothy A

Other than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?

Trump did nothing except get Kim to allow him to build some hotels...most likely with slave labor. Once again the US gets nothing but Trump gets to build his brand more. This time though it is on the backs of the very people Timothy thinks Trumpy is saving.

Because that was written in the document for all of us to read, right? Did I not blow it up big enough to read the fine print?

Why can't people just appreciate Trump was able to pull off something no other sitting US President has ever done and because of that there is hope? Because some people can't be objective.

I didn't like Obama but he did some good things. I didn't like Clinton but he did some good things. I didn't like W but he did a few good things. I liked Bush Sr. a lot, he did some bad things. I loved Reagan and he did some bad things. Let's be objective. I lean Republican, but I voted for Feingold and Kerry. If you are objective, you can crossover. Objectivity is dead.

The news cycle is over 24 hrs old from yesterday, I can't find the links to the articles that said good things about yesterday's meeting. I need to get back to work.

Because that was written in the document for all of us to read, right? Did I not blow it up big enough to read the fine print?

Why can't people just appreciate Trump was able to pull off something no other sitting US President has ever done and because of that there is hope? Because some people can't be objective.

I didn't like Obama but he did some good things. I didn't like Clinton but he did some good things. I didn't like W but he did a few good things. I liked Bush Sr. a lot, he did some bad things. I loved Reagan and he did some bad things. Let's be objective. I lean Republican, but I voted for Feingold and Kerry. If you are objective, you can crossover. Objectivity is dead.

The news cycle is over 24 hrs old from yesterday, I can't find the links to the articles that said good things about yesterday's meeting. I need to get back to work.

Uh, what did he do that other presidents didn't do? Other than take a picture with the president of North Korea?

There's a signed statement, which isn't binding, that was there. It was not what Clinton did, which was a binding agreement, that NK didn't follow.

What's in that statement that is so unique to be more hopeful than previous agreement that had more weight behind them?

Why can't people just appreciate Trump was able to pull off something no other sitting US President has ever done and because of that there is hope? Because some people can't be objective.

Like Obama in 2012, Bush II in '07 and '05, Clinton in '94, Bush I in '92, and Reagan in '85?

It's almost a rite of passage for Presidents to try their hand at North Korea. What do you think he did in six hours that others couldn't in weeks or more with actual diplomats? We gave them a photo op and a promise not to run military exercises for in exchange for a vague promise

"I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites

Because that was written in the document for all of us to read, right? Did I not blow it up big enough to read the fine print?

Why can't people just appreciate Trump was able to pull off something no other sitting US President has ever done and because of that there is hope? Because some people can't be objective.

I didn't like Obama but he did some good things. I didn't like Clinton but he did some good things. I didn't like W but he did a few good things. I liked Bush Sr. a lot, he did some bad things. I loved Reagan and he did some bad things. Let's be objective. I lean Republican, but I voted for Feingold and Kerry. If you are objective, you can crossover. Objectivity is dead.

The news cycle is over 24 hrs old from yesterday, I can't find the links to the articles that said good things about yesterday's meeting. I need to get back to work.

We aren't objecting to Dumpy over political ideology. He isn't "conservative" or anything but a bottomless narcissistic cesspool. Nothing he does matters because you can't trust that tomorrow won't bring the exact opposite.

This is not a content objection -- Dumpy's content is a nullity. This is a process objection. Basically, in the middle of a trial one of the litigators got up and gunned down the judge and jury, and has now declared that his client wins. Objecting to that is not partisan -- it's protecting the process of law. But because you support the client who won, you see nothing wrong with it.

My advice is:

1. Take your "yay team" cap off for a second and see who and what you're rooting for.

2. If those are the rules then nothing prevents the other litigator from throwing a fragmentation grenade into the courtroom and killing off the other side and all its supporters and then declaring his client the winner. That's the world you're making.

It's a book of our true stories
True stories that can't be denied
It's more than true it actually happened
We're coming rougher every time

As attorneys for Michael Cohen rush to meet Judge Kimba Wood’s Friday deadline to complete a privilege review of over 3.7 million documents seized in the April 9 raids of Cohen’s New York properties and law office, a source representing this matter has disclosed to ABC News that the law firm handling the case for Cohen is not expected to represent him going forward.

To date, Cohen has been represented by Stephen Ryan and Todd Harrison of the Washington and New York firm, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP.

No replacement counsel has been identified as of this time.

Cohen, now with no legal representation, is likely to cooperate with federal prosecutors in New York, sources said. This development, which is believed to be imminent, will likely hit the White House, family members, staffers and counsels hard.

Cornell '04, Stanford '06

KDR

RoverFrenchy, Classic! Great post. iwh30I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the mangregg729I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."Ritt18you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.Shirtless BobThat's it, you win.TBA#2I want to kill you and dance in your blood.DisplacedCornellianHahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.

Nothing we do with NK is going to work. The Kim's arent going to stand by any agreement we make because if they are seen as bowing to America they lose power and seem weak. They are a dictatorship afterall.

That is why everything Timothy has said is ridiculous. I get why he is saying it, I even understand why he hopes for it, but in the end it is still ridiculous. Trump did nothing except get Kim to allow him to build some hotels...most likely with slave labor. Once again the US gets nothing but Trump gets to build his brand more. This time though it is on the backs of the very people Timothy thinks Trumpy is saving.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "nothing" will work. We could conceivably turn NK into a parking lot. That would stop proliferation. We could probably give the Kim's a trillion dollars. That could conceivably work. The question is how much less carrot and/or less stick would actually still get something verifiable done? The situation is somewhat different than in the 90's, although there are many similarities. (US politics is still an obstacle, for example.)
The main thing though, as always, is China. China cutting 81% of cash and goods inflow has really squeezed the Kim's and that's perhaps different this time around. Obviously they can't bleed the peasantry any more than they already are to pay for their Beamers, Hookers, and Coke, so they are again getting in a very tight spot between being broke and having 3 or 4 US Carrier Groups under the control of a lunatic on their doorstep every few months. Now if China doesn't bail them out, there's at least some possibility to make some progress.

Originally Posted by alfablue

There's a signed statement, which isn't binding, that was there. It was not what Clinton did, which was a binding agreement, that NK didn't follow.

Like the 1992 Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula between NK and SK, the Agreed Upon Framework was, by definition, a non-binding political commitment of a few pages. As opposed to say the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was binding. Not that it's that significant in retrospect, as NK violated all of them.

Originally Posted by WiscTJK

I'm with Wisko and Tim.

Originally Posted by Timothy A

Other than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?

Ok, I will concede you that. What that article doesn't say, is that once Republicans took Congress back shortly after the agreement was signed, they did everything in their power to sabotage it. The agreed upon fuel shipments were delayed or shorted, and construction of the light water reactors kep0t being put off. Furthermore, the agreement dealt only with NK's plutonium reactors, and those remained shuttered during this time.

Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement.[26]
International funding for the LWR replacement power plants had to be sought. Formal invitations to bid were not issued until 1998, by which time the delays were infuriating North Korea.[25] In May 1998 North Korea warned it would restart nuclear research if the U.S. could not install the LWR.[27][28] Formal ground breaking on the site was on August 21, 1997,[29] but significant spending on the LWR project did not commence until 2000.[30]
U.S. officials in 1998 testified to Congress that there were no fundamental violations of any aspect of the Framework Agreement by North Koreans.[31]
Joel S. Wit, State Department Coordinator for implementation of the Agreed Framework (1995–2000)[32] during the Clinton administration, stated that "we did know about the DPRK cheating on the highly-enriched uranium front starting in 1998."[33]
The U.S. diplomat who negotiated the framework, Robert Gallucci has warned that it could collapse if United States did not fulfill obligations that it agreed to.[31]
There was increasing disagreement between North Korea and the United States on the scope and implementation of the agreement. The United States did little to meet its commitment to normalize political and economic relations.[34] When by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between the United States and North Korea had not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the United States kept up its end of the bargain.[citation needed]

One could argue that NK was using the threat of uranium production to get the US to abide by their agreed upon terms.

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly visited North Korea to confront the North Koreans with the U.S. assessment that they had a uranium enrichment program.[37] The parties' reports of the meeting differ. The U.S. delegation believed the North Koreans had admitted the existence of a highly enriched uranium program.[38] The North Koreans stated Kelly made his assertions in an arrogant manner, but failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos, and they responded by denying that North Korea planned to produce nuclear weapons using enriched uranium. They went on to state that as an independent sovereign state North Korea was entitled to possess nuclear weapons for defense, although they did not possess such a weapon at that point in time.[8][39][40] Relations between the two countries, which had seemed hopeful two years earlier, quickly deteriorated into open hostility.[13]
The HEU intelligence that James Kelly’s accusation is based on is still controversial: According to the CIA fact sheet to Congress on November 19, 2002, there was "clear evidence indicating the North has begun constructing a centrifuge facility" and this plant could produce annually enough HEU for two or more nuclear weapons per year when it is finished. However, some experts assessed that the equipment North Korea imported was insufficient evidence of a production-scale enrichment program.[41]

So functioning might not have been entirely accurate. But there was an agreement in place, that would be effective if both sides had lived up to their stated responsibilities. Certainly a far stronger, more structurally binding agreement than Trumpy's one page press release about the "most epochal agreement ever". Which could have been accomplished with more talk. You guys are real big on talking lately, right? But not then. And Bush did indeed walk away from it. And NK opened up the plutonium reactors.

So I'll stick by my "learn your history" line.

And if you want to be a hardliner about it, you can take this away from it. NK will not abide by the terms of any agreement they make.

Clinton DID do this, even had a signed agreement and everything was going well, until it didn't and Bush put KN into the corner. And Bill didn't get a Nobel, nor was he even nominated- so I'm not sure why you have the outcry about President Clinton. It actually happened, and it actually didn't lead to a Nobel, nor did it actually lead to depolarization with NK- because NK didn't meet the rules.

To be fair, the US didn't meet the rules either. Possibly more than NK didn't. But that's ok, cause we're 'Murica.

1. Take your "yay team" cap off for a second and see who and what you're rooting for.

I'm really not on the "yeah Trump" team. I do LOVE the fact that he's wrankling the establishments' (politicians and media) feathers, it's commical reading and watching all the hyperventilating anti Trumps trying not pass out every 5 minutes, and yes I do like this KN thing. It could be really good. More than anything I am anti establishment at this point in my life. Ban lobbyists, ban political media ads, have term limits. Give the government back to the people.

Because that was written in the document for all of us to read, right? Did I not blow it up big enough to read the fine print?

Why can't people just appreciate Trump was able to pull off something no other sitting US President has ever done and because of that there is hope? Because some people can't be objective.

I didn't like Obama but he did some good things. I didn't like Clinton but he did some good things. I didn't like W but he did a few good things. I liked Bush Sr. a lot, he did some bad things. I loved Reagan and he did some bad things. Let's be objective. I lean Republican, but I voted for Feingold and Kerry. If you are objective, you can crossover. Objectivity is dead.

The news cycle is over 24 hrs old from yesterday, I can't find the links to the articles that said good things about yesterday's meeting. I need to get back to work.

Again this must be a bit? So no one got the Kim's to agree to anything before Trump? Are you drunk?